Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Clause 85 - Exploitation of areas outside the territorial sea for energy production

Michael Weir: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in
clause 85, page 65, line 13, leave out from 'State' to end of line 15 and insert
'shall by order designate that those parts of a Renewable Energy Zone which would fall within an area to which the law of Scotland would pertain as an area in which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in
clause 85, page 65, line 15, at end insert 
 'after consultation with Scottish Ministers'. 
No. 29, in 
clause 88, page 67, line 16, at end insert 
 'but the said Order shall specify that any area to which Scottish law would normally pertain shall be subject to the law of Scotland, Scottish waters being defined by the co-ordinates set out for the boundary in the Continental Shelf Jurisdiction Order (S.I./1968, 891).'. 
No. 30, in 
clause 88, page 67, line 17, leave out from 'section' to end of line 19 and insert 
 'shall ensure that the Courts of Scotland shall have jurisdiction in respect of areas in which Scottish law would normally pertain.'. 
No. 31, in 
clause 96, page 74, line 19, leave out from 'must' to end and insert 
 'secure the consent of the Scottish Ministers'.

Michael Weir: The amendments relate to the three clauses setting up the renewable energy zones and the civil and criminal law that will apply to them. There is some confusion in these matters. Clause 85(5) states:
 ''The Secretary of State may by order designate the whole or a part of a Renewable Energy Zone as an area in relation to which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions.'' 
Subsequent clauses deal with the application of civil and criminal law within the zone and the Scottish Ministers may have a function determined by Order in Council. The Library research paper on the Bill gives a background to the clause with reference to article 2 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which recognises that coastal states have jurisdiction and sovereignty over territorial waters, and part VI of the convention gives coastal states certain rights in relation to the sea bed of their continental shelf. In the UK, that is given effect by the Continental Shelf Act 1964. Part V gives coastal states the right to establish economic zones. 
 I understand that a renewable energy zone is to be designated by Order in Council. The Bill states that Scottish Ministers are to be consulted. So far so good, but earlier the Minister seemed to indicate that the size and extent of the zone have not been finalised. It is not clear how much of it will be off Scotland's shores and to what extent Ministers and Parliament will be involved in the issue. 
 In response to a query on the matter in the other place, Lord Whitty replied: 
 ''An Order in Council could potentially cover civil or criminal law matters that are wholly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998, wholly devolved or a mix of both . . . In the case of wholly reserved matters the Order in Council would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in the Westminster Parliament . . . Where the Order in Council deals with wholly devolved matters it would be subject to annulment of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. Where the content of the Order in Council includes both reserved and devolved matters it would need to be subject to the procedures of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2004; Vol. 657, c. GC335.] 
Again, so far so good, but it is not clear exactly which part of the area will be subject to Scottish law. 
 As the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said earlier, a footnote to the regulatory impact assessment states that the renewable energy zone extends beyond the territorial seas of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is excluded from the devolutionary arrangements set out in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The legislative proposals in regard to territorial waters recognise where appropriate the competence of a devolved Administration. That suggests that there is no Scottish involvement outwith the immediate territorial waters, but that is wrong in principle and in practice. 
 The United Kingdom is different from most coastal states in that it has two completely different legal traditions—Scots law and English law. It is not correct to say that the Scottish Parliament's jurisdiction, and therefore Scots law, extends only to territorial waters. I refer hon. Members to section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998—

Bill O'Brien: Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to give a little more voice. The air conditioning is noisy and the Hansard reporter would like hon. Members to speak a little louder.

Michael Weir: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. I shall try to speak up.
 As I was saying, to suggest that there is no Scottish involvement outwith the immediate territorial waters is wrong in principle and in practice. The UK is different in that it has two differing legal traditions. I was referring to section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines various terms in the Act. It defines Scotland as including 
''so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland''. 
Section 126 goes on to define the Scottish zone, which is important for fisheries matters, as 
''the sea within British fishery limits''— 
the limit under section 1 of the Fishery Limits Act 1976— 
''which is adjacent to Scotland''.
The effect is that Scots law applies to that area of fishing jurisdiction, adjacent to Scotland, which is much greater than the territorial waters. 
 The situation is further compounded by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which defines the boundaries of Scottish waters. The area is much greater than simply the territorial waters. That is important because the authority of the renewable energy zone, as I understand it, is based on the Continental Shelf Act 1964. The 1968 order defined the English area, the Scottish area and the Northern Irish area within UK territorial waters. I shall not bore the Committee by going through the various latitudes and longitudes of that.

Anne McIntosh: Oh!

Michael Weir: I will if the hon. Lady insists, but I think that we shall have a quiet meander down the road of constitutional law this afternoon.
 The order states that 
'''the Scottish area' means the areas included in the sixth designated area, those parts of the first, second and fifth designated areas which lie north of the Scottish border and that part of the seventh designated area which lies north of the Scottish and east of the Northern Irish border''. 
That means that the areas of sea within UK waters that lie adjacent to Scotland—north of the border between Scotland and England—are the areas to which Scots law applies as regards fishery and oil installations. 
 The order refers to which law will apply in each area. It states that 
''the law in force in Scotland shall apply for the determination of such questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in the Scottish area'', 
so Scots law applies in those areas. The Scottish sector of the UK sector—if I can put it that way without tying myself in knots—is much greater than simply the territorial waters. Scots law governs fisheries as well as offshore oil and gas exploration. Should a crime be committed on an oil rig off the Scottish coast, a Scottish police force would deal with the matter and a Scottish court would hear the case. 
 As the Bill stands, that might not necessarily be the case in respect of an offshore wind or wave facility, especially as we do not know the exact extent of any future zone or Order in Council that would define the extent to which the Scottish Parliament, and therefore Scots law, would have jurisdiction. It would be possible for the UK Minister to decree that English law applied to the whole of any renewable energy zone outside strict territorial waters, and the consultation with Scottish Ministers would be a case of, ''Well, there you go. That's it.'' 
 That may seem a minor point, but there is a recent precedent in that, in 1999, there was a change in territorial waters for fisheries jurisdiction, which resulted in a large part of southern Scottish territorial waters for fishery being transferred to English jurisdiction. As a result, if I look out at the sea from the southern part of my constituency, I gaze upon English territorial waters in respect of fishing, though not in respect of other matters. That is disgraceful. 
 Amendment No. 28 would ensure that in any area where Scots law currently applied for other purposes, it would also apply to the renewable energy zone, so that where Scots law applied for oil exploration, fishing and other matters, it would also apply to offshore energy. Amendment No. 29 would define that area with reference to the 1968 order, which defines the extent of Scots waters for these purposes. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would make the appropriate changes to the clauses relating to civil and criminal law. 
 This is an attempt to include certainty, clarity and consistency in the application of law to our seas. I hope that the Minister accepts the absolute sincerity of that and the need for certainty, and that he accepts the amendments without further ado.

Anne McIntosh: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendments and for the knowledge of Scots law that he has demonstrated. The Committee will recall that I am a Scottish advocate, albeit a non-practising one, and I studied the international law of the sea as part of public international law. Sadly, that was before the UN convention on the law of the sea was adopted in 1982. I had the privilege of being taught by the Government adviser, Patricia Byrnie, who was deemed to be a leading expert on the international law of the sea. I shall speak to amendment No. 159 to resolve the conundrum that I tried to address under clause 84. I was quickly and rightly brought to book, as this is the relevant clause.
 The Bill is silent on where the renewable energy zones will be. We are simply trying to establish the principle of extending the UN convention on the law of the sea beyond the territorial waters. Not only do we not know where the zones will be, but we do not know how large they will be. 
 The zones will have implications for Scotland. Will the Minister explain how they will be interpreted and tell us which law will be applicable to them? Will they, for the purposes of the UN convention on the law of the sea, have the same legal status as offshore oil rigs? As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will be only too well aware, Shetland made a claim that some oil wells were in Shetland's territorial waters and so did not pertain to Scotland. That happened when I was studying the international law of the sea, admittedly some time ago, and it is another dimension in this regard. 
 Can the Minister confirm that the renewable energy zones will have the same legal status, be that under English or Scottish law, as offshore oil rigs? That has consequences for the rest of this chapter. Clearly, a renewable energy zone is going to be on a much greater scale and it will not be limited to a small area such as that occupied by an oil rig. We should consider this matter from the point of view of causing navigational hazards and the ability of lifeboats to go out in the event of an emergency, as well as of other fishing interests, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and recreational craft.
 There was a lengthy debate in the House of Lords on this. As the Library note states and the hon. Gentleman quoted, Lord Whitty replied specifically about the status of an Order in Council applying criminal or civil law. My particular concern is that there will be circumstances in which article 85 will apply to Scots law, with a renewable energy zone being positioned in waters that are beyond UK territorial waters but deemed to be part of Scotland. The Bill is silent on that point. I do not know whether the Minister would see that as a West Lothian question, an extension of that question or the opposite of it. 
 I should perhaps not read out page 31 of the regulatory impact assessment again, as I referred to it this morning and the hon. Gentleman has just read it out. However, a footnote states: 
 ''The legislative proposals in regard to territorial waters recognise, where appropriate, the competence of the devolved administrations.''

Michael Weir: There is another problem. If Scots law does not apply all the way out to the site of a renewable energy zone, we could have a situation in which different laws apply to the installations and the pipes bringing energy ashore, many of which will land in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. There is another difficulty of not knowing where and what size the zones will be. The pipes bringing back the generated electricity will be longer the further out the zones are.
 I am a member of the Transport Committee, and we have seen that the proposed second round of consents for wind farm developers is currently looking only at English waters and channels. The wind is strongest near the land, where the farms are also more economically viable from the point of view of bringing the electricity back to land. They are therefore generally situated in shipping channels with heavy traffic. That is why this debate is important. Will the Minister explain why subsection (5) says simply: 
 ''The Secretary of State may . . . designate the whole or a part of a Renewable Energy Zone as an area in relation to which the Scottish Ministers are to have functions''? 
To sum up, we are asking the Minister to confirm the status of the waters, bearing in mind the fact that the Electricity Act 1989 sets out the law in one way while the Scotland Act 1998, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, says that all matters of regulation except water are reserved matters outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Minister needs to give us clear direction on what matters are devolved and what are reserved. The source for my information is a book that I have not brought with me but whose title Hansard noted in one of our first sittings. It says specifically that all matters except water are reserved, so by implication water is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. 
 We are speaking to amendment No. 159 in the most helpful way possible, because we believe that it is incumbent on the Minister to have the earliest possible consultation with the Scottish Ministers, not just for the benefit of those who are fortunate enough to serve 
 under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien, but to help resolve those conflicting and competing uses of the water, which is the subject of the clause.

Stephen Timms: I warmly welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. O'Brien—warm is the appropriate term this afternoon. I have listened with interest to the speeches made. I am hesitant about stepping into such a debate, given the expertise in particular aspects of the law shown by both hon. Members that have spoken, but I will have a bash.
 I shall deal first with amendment No. 28. The purpose of clause 85 is twofold. The first is to vest the rights that are exercisable by the UK in respect of renewable energy under part V of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so that they can be exercised by the Crown Estate. The second is to give a power to establish the renewable energy zone around the UK within which those rights are exercisable. 
 Subsection (5) gives a power to the Secretary of State to designate the area within the UK renewable energy zone over which Scottish Ministers will exercise functions. I have an open mind about the waters that the area will cover. We will have to think carefully and consider the precedents that have been established for other activities, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Angus. Once we have come to a conclusion about the area over which Scottish Ministers will have functions, criminal and civil law can be applied to renewable energy installations within it using the powers under clauses 86 and 88. 
 The hon. Gentleman proposes reversing that by using the area over which Scottish law currently applies in respect of oil and gas activities under the 1968 statutory instrument. However, renewable energy is a new activity and we want to consider all options for designating the area rather than automatically adopting that one. We will certainly consider it, but we want to consider them all.

Michael Weir: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but my concern is that if we designate a different area, oil platforms and offshore wind platforms in the same area could operate under two different laws. Surely that is not an acceptable way to operate. They should operate under the same law.

Stephen Timms: That could arise wherever the boundary is drawn; there could be installations close to each other on different sides of the boundary and we must live with that. That issue could be taken into account when deciding exactly where the demarcation will be drawn.

Michael Weir: I am sorry to be pedantic, but it is not just a case of where the boundary is drawn. If the whole renewable energy zone, or a large part of it, was determined to be under English law, where oil areas are currently under Scottish law, different laws could apply to two different installations in areas far into Scottish waters. Does the Minister accept that?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point and that would have to be taken into account when coming to a decision. However, I would not want to close down the range of available options.
 On amendment No. 159, I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that the Secretary of State should have discussions with her Scottish counterpart before designating the part of the renewable energy zone over which Scottish Ministers will have functions. Scottish Ministers would not normally have devolved competence in the renewable energy zone, which lies beyond territorial waters, but they can exercise devolved functions beyond territorial waters occasionally. However, Scottish Ministers cannot decide over which parts of the zone—which will extend around the whole UK—they will exercise functions under the Bill. I would not want to write a formal requirement, as suggested in the amendment, into the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am not in practice, so I do not have a vested interest, but I do not think that the Committee would wish to be a hostage to fortune at this stage. Both the hon. Member for Angus and I have identified a potential loophole whereby one rule would apply to renewable energy zones in Scottish waters and a totally different one to English waters. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend. A potential way forward would be for the Government to reconsider the matter and explain their findings on Report. If there were such a loophole or potential difference of interpretation, it would be highly unfortunate. I cannot believe that that would be the Government's intention.

Stephen Timms: I do not think that there is a loophole, although it is true that there certainly will be a difference. That applies to wherever the boundary is drawn. What is important is that should be clarity about that, and there will be. There is certainly no fundamental difficulty with operating two different arrangements in two different offshore areas.
 Turning to amendment No. 30, the same point about not binding Scottish Ministers applies. I agree also with the principle that Scottish courts should have jurisdiction to take proceedings in respect of civil law questions relating to renewable energy installations and related lines in Scottish internal and territorial waters, as well as waters designated in clause 85(5). Having given an undertaking that the Order in Council under subsection (2) will follow that principle, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment, the drafting of which is defective in that it provides only for Scotland. 
 On amendment no. 31, clause 96(4) says: 
 ''Before issuing a notice under this section, which relates, wholly or partly, to— 
 (a) an area of Scottish waters, or 
 (b) an area of waters in a Scottish part of a Renewable Energy Zone, 
 the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers.'' 
That reflects an agreement that we have reached with Scottish Ministers. The Secretary of State will, of course, listen carefully to Scottish Ministers' views, and will do everything that she can to accommodate 
 them. It is certainly reasonable to assume that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers will reach an agreement; I do not think that there will be any difficulty with that, because we strongly share with Scottish Ministers a commonly held objective to encourage renewable energy. We already work closely with colleagues at the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive to ensure that there is a common, UK-wide approach to marine safety policy and regulation. When agreement is not possible—although one can envisage that in the future it will be—the Secretary of State must be able to take the action that she thinks is proper, taking account of the consultation with Ministers and the public that will be required for a safety zone. If there were a requirement to obtain the agreement of Scottish Ministers, the danger would be that she would be unable to act if such an agreement were not forthcoming, and such an impasse would not be in the interests of marine safety. 
 I should like to respond to a couple of points made earlier in the debate. The hon. Member for Angus referred on a number of occasions to the continental shelf. However, the renewable energy zone is not based on that. It derives from article 56 of part V of the UN convention law of the sea, which deals with the exclusive economic zone. The continental shelf derives from part VI of the convention. There is that difference, and the continental shelf part of the convention relates to oil and gas development, not to renewable energy, which is raised in part V.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I should like to respond to a point that the hon. Lady made earlier, which may be helpful. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make an order applying civil and criminal law—Scots or English—to an installation and to a safety zone. It does not apply to the renewable energy zone by itself, but to the installations within it. When the order has been made, the position will be clear.

Anne McIntosh: The clarification I was seeking is compounded by the Minister's reference to the part VI of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which, as he said, refers to the continental shelf, and to oil and gas exploration. Is he saying that the renewable energy zone has a different legal base? It will set more alarm bells ringing if there is no protection for shipping, which currently enjoys the public right of navigation around oil rigs. Will it enjoy the same rights to navigate around a zone?

Stephen Timms: It is the same convention, but part V rather than part VI applies. In part V, article 56 refers to
''activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of a zone such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.'' 
That is the basis of the Bill's renewable energy zone provisions, rather than part VI, which sets out the arrangements relating to the continental shelf.

Michael Weir: I mentioned the difference between parts V and VI when I spoke earlier. However, I am not satisfied with what the Minister said because it seems to be a recipe for complete confusion. I cannot understand the Minister's reluctance to include in the Bill that Scots law will apply in respect of renewable energy installations, as it does in respect of oil installations. There are wind farms off the English coast and several projects in the pipeline for wind farms off the Scottish coast. Many will be in areas where there is oil and gas exploration, although some of that is coming to an end.
 Earlier, the problem of pipelines or cables bringing energy ashore from wind farms was mentioned. Many of the pipelines from those installations will pass through Scottish waters and end up in Scotland, however they are defined. It appears that we are to have different laws in respect of oil and gas and renewable energy and possibly fishing. That is a recipe for disaster, as there will be uncertainty about which law applies in a given situation. 
 The Minister said that he would consider the matter but he is unwilling to give a clear commitment. I therefore wish to press the amendment to a Division.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister is even more familiar with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea than I am. I will not press our amendment but I put down a marker that we may wish to return to the subject. The hon. Gentleman seems to have confirmed that there will be a separate legal basis for zones under part V of the UN convention, as opposed to oil and gas exploration under part VI. That will have consequences when we discuss later clauses.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the opportunity to have a short debate on the clause and in particular the implications for both the clause and the Bill generally of the UN convention on the law of the sea. We had a short debate this morning on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who sought to discuss some of the marine environmental issues. Quite properly those issues come under this part of the Bill.
 As the Minister said, article 2 of the convention sets out the 
 ''Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil''. 
Part V sets out the exclusive economic zone. There are some quite wide ranging measures, which I am sure the Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Lewes, would wish to support. Article 57 states: 
 ''The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.'' 
I presume that the Minister can confirm that the zones will be within that scale. 
 Mention is made of the conservation of living resources, and article 61 calls on the coastal state to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone. One surprising feature of this part of the Bill, bearing in mind that Lord Whitty from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs steered it through the House of Lords, is that the Government pay little regard to how they will meet their obligations under article 61. What steps has the Department taken on this? 
 The utilisation of living resources in the exclusive economic zone is set out further in article 62. It talks about highly migratory species. I am sure that the hon. Member for Angus accepts that fishing policy is one of the most contentious policies at the moment because, in my humble submission, fish do not swim around with a Union jack on their backs.

Michael Weir: Or a saltire.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. It is difficult to say in whose waters these fish belong. The coastal state Government also has a duty under article 64 towards the highly migratory species listed in annex 1. Specific obligations are set out in respect of marine animals, anadromous stocks and so on. I cannot pronounce some of the terms, so I will not go through them article by article. However, part V of the UN convention, which we heard from the Minister is the legal basis for what we are discussing, sets out rights and responsibilities on the part of the Government. Coastal states are enabled to establish the zone and given back
''sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources'' 
and the production of energy from the water, both currents and tides, and wind. I do not disagree with the measure; I simply wait to hear from the Minister how it will be pushed through. 
 The Library note is a little confusing in that regard. The Minister seemed to indicate with a nod from a sedentary position his agreement that the safety zone would not be more than 200 miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. The note says that the UN law of the sea convention specifies that the safety zone is not to exceed a distance of 500 m from the installation unless the International Maritime Organisation agrees that it can be larger. We shall come on to discuss in some detail some of the issues relating to navigation, so I shall not raise them now. I wonder at what stage the Minister, either through his Department or, more likely, the Department for Transport, will enter into 
 discussions with the IMO with regard to the distance of 500 m from the installation that will be based in the exclusive zone. 
 I welcome clause 85. International law has long recognised that each coastal state has jurisdiction and sovereignty over its territorial waters, but no comprehensive legal framework is in place for offshore renewable energy developments beyond the territorial waters. We therefore need the legal basis set out in the clause. 
 My concern, to which I have alluded, relates to the Government trying to create a zone through the Bill. Within that, we shall see whether consents can be applied for installations in what happen to be some of the busiest shipping lanes. At a time when the Government and the European Commission seek to boost not only international shipping but coastal shipping and short sea shipping routes, the Minister will be aware that there will be a direct confrontation between the two policies of developing renewable energy zones and allowing commercial shipping to develop, as we hope it will. I seek elucidation from the Minister.

Norman Baker: On a rather different tack, may I raise a couple of obtuse constitutional and procedural points relating to the clause and ask the Minister for an explanation?

Laurence Robertson: You usually do.

Norman Baker: No, this is unusual. Under clause 85(4), it is proposed that the powers will reside with ''Her Majesty'', who
''may by Order in Council designate'', 
yet subsection (5) has a different formulation. It states: 
 ''The Secretary of State may . . . designate''. 
It is not clear to me what the difference is. Perhaps I should know more about constitutional law than I do, but what is the difference between the effects of the wording in subsection (4) and that in subsection (5), both of which appear to be subject to the negative resolution procedure under subsection (6)? 
 On another obtuse point—it is nevertheless worth raising, given the number of times that the words ''Her Majesty'' appear in the Bill—there is a difference between the personal possessions of the monarch and the Crown in Parliament, which is the formula that we use for many of our activities. The wording in subsection (1) is ambiguous in that regard, and I wonder whether the Minister has taken advice on it.

Stephen Timms: As the hon. Member for Vale of York rightly said, a legislative framework is already in place to govern the development of renewable energy resources—wind as well as tide and wave power—around our coast to a 12-nautical-mile limit of territorial waters. Beyond that, international law governs our rights and obligations, and it is the UN convention—UNCLOS—that gives coastal states the
 right to explore and develop wind, tide and wave resources to produce energy in a 200-nautical-mile offshore zone, which we are calling the renewable energy zone.
 The hon. Lady asked about the distance, and it is 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In practice, the zone will not extend for anything like 200 nautical miles around much of the UK coast because it would run into other countries. In those cases, the zone boundary will extend to the median line. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the significance of vesting powers in Her Majesty, which is the form used. Subsection (1) vests in Her Majesty the rights set out in part V of UNCLOS to explore and exploit the water and wind resources of the renewable energy zone. The practical effect is that the Crown Estate will have similar powers to those that it exercises already as owner of the sea bed in territorial waters to negotiate site licences with developers who want to build projects in the renewable energy zone beyond territorial waters. 
 Wind power is the most advanced renewable technology at the moment, but we are looking further ahead than that and putting in place a framework to enable wave and tide projects to proceed when they become feasible on a significant scale. The constitutional basis is to ensure that the responsibilities will be exercised by the Crown Estate for the renewable energy zone in the same way that they are in territorial waters. 
 The hon. Lady asked about other aspects of part V of the UN convention. I should make it clear that we are not constructing an exclusive economic zone; we are exercising only the rights that the convention gives us on renewable energy to establish a renewable energy zone. This part of the Bill puts in place the arrangements to do that. 
 The fishing provisions in part V, to which the hon. Lady referred, do not apply. As she said, several of the issues will come up under later parts of the Bill, but I do not think that there are problems in restricting ourselves to the renewable energy powers that the convention gives us. 
 I hope that I have covered the points raised by hon. Members and that the Committee is content to agree to the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Application of criminal law to renewable energy installations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a brief query for the Minister, and it is similar to a point raised earlier. The Order in Council may provide that a constable is allowed to extend and apply criminal law to the renewable energy installation. Subsection (7) says that
'''subordinate legislation' includes an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'' 
My question is simple. If such an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament conflicted with an Order in Council, who would have the last word? Would it be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Parliament? 
 There is a separate system of criminal law under Scots law. Will that remain devolved under the provisions of part VI? We are told in the explanatory note—

Bill O'Brien: Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to speak up please?

Anne McIntosh: We are told:
 ''This clause provides a power to establish, by Order in Council, criminal jurisdiction over any 'renewable energy installation'''. 
Although one would not want to plant the thought in anyone's mind, presumably that also covers any terrorist activity in relation to installations based in the renewable energy zone. Presumably, it is covered by an Act of Parliament passed by Westminster as opposed to Scotland. 
 How will the Bill apply? I repeat that there is a distinct application of criminal law in Scotland, and subsections (7) and (3) are not as clear as they might be.

Michael Weir: This small matter follows on from what the hon. Lady has said. Subsection (6) refers to:
 ''Proceedings for anything that is an offence by virtue only of an Order in Council''. 
What does the Minister think might be imposed by an Order in Council that might be a criminal offence under Scots law? Scots law is a wholly devolved matter and this House would legislate for criminal law in Scotland only if a Sewel motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament, as has been done many times. It is difficult to see how an Order in Council, promulgated by Ministers in Westminster, could impose a criminal penalty under the jurisdiction of Scots law. Can he clarify that point?

Stephen Timms: The Government need to have the ability to apply criminal law to installations in the renewable energy zone created by virtue of clause 85. To ensure uniformity of criminal jurisdiction for all offshore renewable energy installations, the clause extends not only to installations in the renewable energy zone, but to those located further inshore, in tidal waters adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.
 We legislate with the agreement of the Scottish Executive in respect of the aspects of clause 86 that are within their competence. Clause 89, which we shall come to shortly, provides a parliamentary procedure for the Orders in Council that cover matters that are either wholly devolved to the Scottish Executive or of mixed competence. 
 In response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York, there does not need to be a difficulty on this issue. Scottish Ministers make Orders in Council on devolved matters and the Secretary of States makes them on reserved matters. I do not think 
 that there is a danger of conflict; the relevant provision is clause 89. The hon. Member for Angus asked me for specific examples. I am afraid that I do not have any to hand, but perhaps I may send him a communication that will satisfy his curiosity on that point.

Michael Weir: I am still not clear about the procedure for an Order in Council as laid down in clause 86; it is not clear how that fits with Scottish criminal law. As the Minister said a moment ago, there should be clarity in the criminal law, but Scottish law is different in some respects—not so much in the nature of the offence, but the procedure. I am still not clear how an Order in Council will be able to impose on Scottish jurisdiction. That reinforces my earlier point about the certainty of jurisdiction. The Minister is wandering into possibly dangerous waters—no pun intended—regarding the jurisdiction over installations in the Scottish sector and those in the English sector, with no clarity as to which law applies.

Stephen Timms: I do not think that the problem the hon. Gentleman fears we might be in danger of raising here exists. Westminster will not deal with Orders in Council on devolved matters. The Secretary of State at Westminster will do what needs to be done on reserved matters, but Scottish Ministers will make an Order in Council under procedures of the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters. If that leaves a gap, I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to draw my attention to it, or he can write to me and I shall give him the benefit of specialist advice on such matters in providing him with the answer he seeks.

Michael Weir: I am sorry to be pedantic, and I promise that I shall not intervene again, but subsection (6) says that
''the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.'' 
I do not understand. If Scottish Ministers are making an Order in Council to apply in Scotland, and the UK Government in Westminster are making one to apply in the rest of the UK, how can either of those Orders in Council create an offence that can be 
''treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom''? 
Is not the Minister suggesting that the Scottish Parliament could make an Order in Council that might create an offence that could be tried in the English courts?

Stephen Timms: I am afraid that I have not fully grasped the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he gives me more insight to it, I will be happy to provide him with as full an answer as I can.

Michael Weir: Rather than pursue the matter, I shall write to the Minister, as we could debate the point all afternoon.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 295

Clause 87Prosecutions

Prosecutions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is not a dissimilar point, which may be of some assistance to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Angus. I cannot understand why, having ordered that clause 86 stand part of the Bill, Scotland will have jurisdiction over those devolved powers. Why is there no reference in clause 87 to prosecutions in the Scottish courts? There are no references to the roles of the procurator fiscal, the Advocate-General or the Lord Advocate.
 Does the Minister accept that, despite what he said about earlier clauses in part 3, chapter 1 of the Bill, no infringements that apply under Scottish jurisdiction will be prosecuted? Presumably, the Bill should outline the correct procedures of Scots law. The hon. Member for Angus said that this matter has more to do with processes under Scottish criminal law as opposed to English, but from my hazy recollection of Scots law—I practised only briefly, as I moved to practise European Community law, as it was then was, in Brussels—the offences, as well as the processes, are different. 
 That is a staggering omission. Either the Minister will say that the Scotland Act applies by default or he will have to explain why his Department does not envisage a problem. Obviously, those living in Scotland are very law-abiding, although I represent a seat, Vale of York, that is equidistant from Edinburgh and London. Either the Minister accepts that the Scots are so law-abiding that there will be no prosecutions or he has failed to set out any reference to the relevant procedures and personalities for dealing with such prosecutions under Scots law. Either way, the Committee needs to know this afternoon.

Michael Weir: I shall be very brief. The hon. Lady's argument is valid up to a point. She is quite right that there are different offences in Scots law, but as the majority of offences under the clause might be committed offshore it is difficult to see a huge difference. However, this issue illustrates the need to be clear as to which jurisdiction applies in each case.
 The answer to the question may be rather more simple. Subsection (3) refers to obtaining the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. My recollection is that that particular wording is an attempt to avoid private prosecution, which is much more difficult in Scotland. The Lord Advocate or the procurator fiscal would normally institute proceedings for any breach. However, the question illustrates the lack of clarity in jurisdiction. I urge the Minister to consider that and to come back on Report with a much clearer definition of the jurisdiction question, and therefore the prosecution question, under these various clauses.

Stephen Timms: There is a need for clarity and there will be clarity. I do not think that that will be a problem at all. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York. He almost did, but, if I understand the position correctly, not quite.
 The general rule is that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required before proceedings can be instituted in England and Wales. Similarly, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is needed before any proceedings can begin there. However, there is no provision for proceedings in Scotland because the consent of the Lord Advocate is needed in all cases without enactment here being necessary. The point is already covered as a matter of Scottish common law. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88 - Application of civil law to renewable energy installations etc.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in
clause 88, page 67, line 43, at end add—
 '(8) Enforcement of civil law on offshore renewable energy installations and in Renewable Energy Zones will be the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.
 Clearly, one of the Bill's oversights—as picked up in the evidence taken and conclusions drawn by the Transport Committee in its report, ''Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill''—is the failure of the Department of Trade and Industry to consult properly with the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The amendment is a helpful suggestion to the Minister that there should be proper consultation at the earliest possible stage. It seems that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the correct body for these purposes. 
 Will the Minister tell the Committee what stage consultations with the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have reached? When were they consulted on the clause and other relevant parts of the Bill? The Transport Committee was critical, although one hesitates to use unparliamentary language and say ''damning''. Conclusion 4 of its report states that it is obvious that just as the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency were not properly involved in the strategic environmental assessments, their advice was not heeded at the tender stage. 
 I urge the Minister to regard this little amendment sympathetically. Through which organisation does he propose to apply civil law if not through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?

Richard Page: I hesitate to make any contribution to this debate, but if I were writing to the letters pages of some tabloids about the Bill, I would sign my letter, ''Confused from South-West Hertfordshire''. A lot of
 my colleagues say that I am permanently confused, which does not add much to the debate, but I really do not know where we are on these clauses. I do not know where the responsibility lies if something goes wrong.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, who trained as a Scottish advocate and has knowledge of the law of the sea, asked several questions about previous clauses that to my mind have not been adequately answered. I am no legal expert, and I am not too certain where I would be leading the Committee if I debated any of these points at length, but the position seems to be that nobody knows where the ultimate responsibility lies. 
 In responding on the last clause, the Minister said that in the event of a prosecution, this would be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions in England or for the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, but for the procurator fiscal in Scotland. Clause 88 carries these words: 
 ''Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide''. 
They run through the piece. Does that mean that in localised areas in which activities take place, the DPP and the procurator fiscal can handle these matters, but if it all goes wrong, the Government, through an overriding Order in Council, can sort the matter out and put things straight?

Norman Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Page: I have almost finished my remarks. It is obvious that I am completely unclear about what the clause does. I am sorry to say that we have not had an adequate explanation, and if someone could tell me exactly what this all means as regards a clean line of law and authority I would be grateful.
 The people who will build those installations want a clear line of authority and want to know where they stand in law. They do not want to break new ground in creating case law. They want to know where they are from day one, not expensive legal fees.

Michael Weir: I will not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, as there is much confusion over jurisdiction. I do not fully understand what the hon. Member for Vale of York is getting at in amendment No. 160, which states:
 ''Enforcement of civil law on offshore renewable energy installations . . . will be the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'' 
The civil law, according to my recollection, covers a vast area, including contractual obligations and other disputes that could well arise in respect of the installations in a renewable energy zone. It is not clear to me where the Maritime and Coastguard Agency comes into the matter in respect of civil law. Many of the matters in question would have to be decided, I think, by courts of law on land—either in Scotland, England or wherever the relevant court was sitting—which brings us back to the lack of certainty on that aspect of the matter. 
 Perhaps the hon. Lady will sum up and explain the role of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in civil law, as opposed to the enforcement of criminal 
 sanction. I can perceive a role in criminal law, but I am less sure where a civil law role would arise for that agency in relation to offshore installations.

Stephen Timms: I think the hon. Gentleman is right. There is a bit of a misunderstanding about the amendment.
 Clause 88 is intended to apply civil law to renewable energy installations and related cables. That means that questions arising out of acts or omissions in relation to installations and cables can be determined by the courts. Such matters arise usually out of relationships between parties, such as contractual relationships. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not have a role in that context. The agency has a role in enforcing aspects of the criminal law, under, for example, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which is mentioned in clause 87(2), but not in civil law. The amendment is not appropriate for that reason. 
 However, the hon. Lady used the amendment to raise wider issues. She referred to the report published last week by the Transport Committee. The Government will respond to that fully in due course. However, there was wide consultation on the establishment of the renewable energy zone in our consultation document, ''Future Offshore'', issued in November 2002. That publication was of course agreed by all Departments, including the Department for Transport, before it was issued. There was strong support from respondents for the concept of the renewable energy zone. The Department for Transport is party to the sustainable energy policy network, which is taking forward the whole gamut of the commitments in the energy White Paper.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the submissions in evidence to the Transport Committee? The consultation to which he refers was an exercise purely in dealing with those bodies that are normally consulted by the Department of Trade and Industry. Not one shipping interest had seen or been consulted about the document. That is where some of the problems—we shall come to them later—derive from.

Stephen Timms: Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been helpful if some of those who did not respond to the consultation had done so—they certainly could have done. I am pleased that good communication has now been established, and I hope that the same difficulties will not arise again.
 In response to the points made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), the Orders in Council apply the law to the renewable energy zone—otherwise it would not apply. Thereafter, however, prosecutions of the offences are to be dealt with—I described this earlier and, indeed, he referred to it—with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales, and in Scotland separately through the Lord Advocate. The Order in Council is needed to apply the law, but beyond that there are separate arrangements for pursuing prosecutions in England and Wales and in Scotland.

Norman Baker: I hope the Minister will respond to my point, which arose from what the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire said, about Orders in Council. I should like clarification about the procedure. Clause 85 provides for Orders in Council, which are, under subsection (6), subject to negative resolution procedure. However, in clauses 86 and 88, the Orders in Council do not appear to be so subject, except in the narrow terms of clause 89(3). Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the inconsistent application of the negative resolution procedure?

Stephen Timms: I am absolutely confident that we are being wholly consistent and I look forward to sending a letter to the hon. Gentleman explaining precisely why those clauses are as they are.

Anne McIntosh: We have had an interesting debate. Let me return to the confusion that I created in the mind of the hon. Member for Angus. The Minister must know that if an individual, or Parliament as a body, is to respond to a consultation, the consultation document has to be addressed to that individual or body so that they are aware that it exists. It is clear that the document was not directly addressed to any of the shipping interests that are deeply concerned by the clauses—identified by my hon. Friends in the other place—that the Government now seek to remove.
 The Government are compounding their mistake by failing to consult the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the British fishing and marine industries, the major ports group and others who might have an interest. Those might not be among the contracting organisations to which the Minister referred, but they could have interests that run counter to those covered by the clause. My suggestion was intended to be helpful. I hear what the Minister says, and hope that he will be willing to be corrected when we come to discuss why the shipping interests were not consulted. We would be hard pressed to find any section of the fishing industry that was formally consulted and invited to respond to the consultation. Having made those points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 89 and 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 - Modification of licence conditions for offshore transmission and distribution

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
clause 91, page 69, line 13, at end insert
'for bringing it, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 175, in
clause 91, page 69, line 19, at end insert 
 'for bringing it, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.'. 
Amendment No. 176, in 
clause 92, page 70, line 27, at end insert 
 'for bringing it, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.'. 
Amendment No. 177, in 
clause 92, page 70, line 36, at end insert 
 'for bringing it, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it.'.

Norman Baker: First, a word for the Minister. He is going to write to me about the negative resolution procedure. I am sure that that will be one of the most riveting letters I have received for some time, and I look forward to receiving it.
 I am always struck by the Government's wise choice of words in the framing of legislation. I am struck in particular by the wisdom of that choice in clause 96(7). Referring to the publication of notices, it says that they should be brought 
''to the attention of persons likely to be affected'' 
by them. That seems an entirely sensible procedure, and it is very wise of the Government to have included those words in that clause. Here, we have a similar situation in relation to the modification of licence conditions, but those words do not appear. Indeed, it says only that the publication must be 
''in such manner as the Secretary of State—'' 
or GEMA— 
''considers appropriate'', 
without using the wise words of qualification used in clause 96(7). I seek, as always, to help the Government by inserting the words that they wisely use elsewhere but, by some curious omission, fail to include here.

Stephen Timms: I appreciate the intentions and kind thoughts behind the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I am sure that we would all want to minimise any uncertainty for those likely to be affected by the licence modification. However, I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary. The changes to the licence conditions will be published in a way that will make them available to those affected. Administrative law already requires that. The formulation has been used in the past—in the Utilities Act 2000—and I am not aware of any problems that have arisen from those precedents.
 Of course, the Secretary of State and GEMA, the regulatory authority, will want to undertake the publication activities under clauses 91 and 92 as quickly as possible, but writing into the Bill the requirement that they should be performed as soon as is reasonably practicable would not add any great rigour to the processes. Rather, it would lengthen the Bill by inserting something that is not a very stiff test. I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to make the test stiffer. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the amendments achieve a great deal.

Norman Baker: The amendments would not add to the Bill unduly; in which case, presumably the Minister will argue that the words in clause 96(7) are unnecessary and should be deleted. Would he welcome an amendment to that effect?

Stephen Timms: No. Clause 96(7) uses different language, because a safety zone notice needs to be publicised to all users of the sea. Licensed conditions are relevant to licensees, so the wording is not necessary.

Norman Baker: I shall leave students of legislation to examine that exchange and to see what they make of it in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in
clause 91, page 69, line 24, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'twenty four'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment: No. 162, in
clause 92, page 70, line 38, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'twenty four'.

Anne McIntosh: These two little amendments are intended to be helpful and in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. One could describe them as probing amendments, providing an opportunity to ask the Minister why the Department has allowed the Secretary of State only 18 months to apply to vary the activities required under the licences. It would seem in the two cases that it would be more helpful to allow the Department and the industry to modify the licences of those who have been awarded them by granting them a marginally longer period—24 months, or two years—rather than a year and a half.
 There will be some very complicated issues, as offshore wind installations are being set up and operated for the first time, and this is a very complicated area of the law. It is incumbent on the Government and the Department to allow a longer period to elapse. The time limit of 18 months is too short. The amendments give us the opportunity to hear from the Minister why the particularly short time frame identified by the Government in clauses 91 and 92 has been limited to 18 months. We believe that 24 months might prevent recourse to the courts or to the law.

Richard Page: I will be commendably brief. Having had some responsibility for granting offshore licences, I can say that there is a significant difference between laying cables on land and laying cables at sea. In some seasons, the North sea can be remarkably rough. It can cause an immense amount of trouble, and it takes time for the swell to settle after a storm.
 Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that 18 months will be long enough for the work to be carried out? The only reason for the amendment is that I want to ensure that whoever gets the licences has the opportunity to operate within a sensible time frame, and need not take 
 risks at times of inclement weather and danger. It is a simple probing amendment. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Stephen Timms: This is about modifying the standard conditions of transmission and distribution licences and associated codes. I hope that the weather will not have too much impact on the time that it takes to do the work. I think that 18 months is about right. We need sufficient time to make the necessary modifications to the transmission and distribution licences under clause 91, and to the transmission co-ordination or system operator licence under clause 92, in order to set up the regulatory framework offshore. However, we want to minimise the period of uncertainty for those likely to be affected by the changes. I think that the Committee will agree that, in principle, the shorter that time the better. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that there is enough time for the job to be done properly. On that basis, we reached the view that 18 months is about right.
 The 18 months runs from the date of commencement of the power in both cases; we can delay the bringing into force of the relevant provisions until such time as we are ready to begin the process of licence modifications. Time need not be wasted at the beginning of the work. 
 The BETTA clauses, which the Committee will come to later, make similar provision for an 18-month window. We would not wish to have a different time period for making the modifications provided for in clauses 91 and 92. Consistency is a further point in favour of the 18-month period.

Anne McIntosh: I am mindful of the excellent and helpful contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, and of the Minister's clarification. Were the Minister to accept the amendment, one could amend the BETTA clauses, or the worse clauses. However, I am grateful for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - Extension of transmission licences offshore

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in
clause 92, page 70, line 4, leave out 'one or both of'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 92, page 70, line 4, at end insert 'areas'. 
Amendment No. 129, in 
clause 92, page 70, line 5, leave out 'an area of'. 
Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 92, page 70, line 6, leave out 'an' and insert 'the'.

Norman Baker: It could be argued that the amendments that I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) are not significantly different from the Bill. Modestly, however, we think that our wording is better.
 The amendments give us the opportunity to raise an important issue. When powers are exercised by the Secretary of State, that should be done with consistency and in a manner in which those affected would reasonably expect them to be exercised. It seems to us that our amendments to clause 92(2) would give the message that there would be such consistency of treatment. In responding, I hope that the Minister will say how the power is likely to be exercised and what steps will be taken to ensure consistency in decision making.

Stephen Timms: The clause enables the Secretary of State to modify the co-ordination licence so that the authorisation and conditions of the licence apply to the transmission of electricity within an area of the territorial sea or an area of the UK continental shelf, or both. Taken together, the amendments would mean that all the territorial sea and the continental shelf would have to be treated in the same way.
 We may not need the flexibility that we built into the provision, but we are not certain that we do not. Until we have done more detailed work on the extension of the co-ordination licence offshore and carried out the consultation provided for under clause 92(5), I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible to retain the flexibility that is built into the drafting.

Norman Baker: That was an interesting response. The Minister therefore concedes that there is inconsistency in the wording as drafted, but he believes that it may be necessary, depending on the consultation. If consultation is to be meaningful, we have to listen to what it says. Equally, my point is valid. If we have inconsistency of treatment for different areas, it may affect individuals or areas of the United Kingdom differently.
 I will not press the amendment, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to flag up the issue. I hope that the Minister will not lose sight of that. There is a need to understand the individual applications that may or may not affect the modifications required, but there is also a need to ensure fairness throughout. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 - Competitive tenders for offshore transmission licences

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in
clause 93, page 71, line 7, at end insert
'having regard to navigational, maritime and shipping interests and in consultation with the Department for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.
 The clause inserts a new section 6C into the 1989 Act to enable GEMA to make regulations setting out the process to be followed when it awards offshore transmission licences by competitive tender. The important point that has been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire is that we are chartering—

Richard Page: Entering uncharted waters.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
 According to the explanatory notes, there are currently no offshore transmission licences and I believe that there is only one offshore installation. These are completely new waters. Why does the Bill make no direct reference to negotiations or discussions with the Department for Transport or with navigational, maritime and shipping interests? Clearly the whole process of establishing an offshore transmission licence will be much more complicated than applying for an onshore transmission licence. There are so many other interests that should be consulted and they are not referred to in the Bill. 
 This appears to be another instance in which the Government are mindful of the interests of the developers of the offshore installation without paying even lip service to the other users. There might be a good reason why the Government have not seen fit to consult the parties referred to in the amendment, and we stand to be corrected here. However, we felt that it was appropriate to include in clause 93 a requirement that, at the earliest possible stage when the licences are submitted to competitive tender, all the users of a particular zone are consulted and their interests addressed.

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with the amendment. In particular, I want to ask the Minister about the reliance on competitive tenders, which, according to my reading, appear to be the only determining factor for handing out the licences. The Government have generally moved away from pure competitive tendering to a process of best value, which has been broadly welcomed. It does not just consider price, as other factors are taken into account.
 Those factors include some of those referred to by the hon. Member for Vale of York, although she could have referred to the environmental intentions or methods of a particular licence applicant. She might also have referred to whether a particular individual or company has form, to use a colloquialism, that might be germane to the activity in question. Considering that we have all talked about the need to ensure, for example, that the navigation and marine environment is properly protected, I am reluctant for the process simply to be one of competitive tendering. Can the Minister assure us that my reading is wrong and that there is a process beyond the competitive tendering that will pick up the other issues?

Stephen Timms: I understand the strength of the hon. Lady's concerns, as reflected in the Transport Committee's report. I make the point to her again that the Department for Transport has been party to all discussions leading up to the Bill, including those on the White Paper and, specifically, the responses to the ''Future Offshore'' consultation. We received more than 100 responses to that document, including many from the shipping industry, so I do not accept her characterisation of the exercise.
 The amendment is difficult to tie to the concern that the hon. Lady expressed. It would require Ofgem to have regard to navigational, maritime and shipping interests when drawing up the regulations needed to run the competitive tender for an offshore transmission licence. Subsection (2) of new section 6C, which is inserted by the clause, sets out the kinds of things that the regulations may cover, including 
''provision for the inclusion in such a proposal of an invitation to apply for such a licence'' 
 ''provision restricting the making of applications for offshore transmission licences and imposing requirements as to the period within which they must be made''. 
Those are narrow procedural matters, and it would be difficult to imagine the circumstances in which the navigational, maritime and shipping interests would come into play in drawing up the regulations. 
 Subsection (4) of new section 6C states: 
 ''The approval of the Secretary of State is required for the making of regulations'', 
so there is a safeguard so that matters within the competence of the Department for Transport, including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, can be addressed in the regulations. A further point is that any transmission licence holder must obtain a consent under the Coast Protection Act 1949 before any cabling may be placed in the water to make sure that it is not likely to be an obstruction or danger to navigation. That aspect of the exercise is covered separately in that way. 
 I say simply to the hon. Member for Lewes that a competitive process will not solely be about price. It will mean that the tender will be open to everybody, and it is in all our interests that there is a good range of offers and proposals from different organisations and that it is competitive in that sense. However, the decision will take into account all the considerations that should apply.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes for his support for the concept. The additional factors that he rightly addressed relate to the UN convention on the law of the sea. I am sure that the Minister will argue that the environmental concerns expressed, particularly by those on this side of the Committee, permeate the Bill. I am grateful for his explanation, and I will not further labour the point about consultation at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Michael Weir: I have a small point to make about clause 93, which follows on from something that the hon. Member for Lewes raised in connection with the previous amendment. My point relates to the regulations for the competitive tender. I appreciate that the clause covers only competitive tender, but has any thought been given to an overall plan for offshore installations? It has been pointed out by those interested in tendering for offshore installations that without a procedure for ensuring a link-up between installations, a multitude of installations could be given licences and each could lay their own cables to shore. It could be that, when the first or subsequent licences are granted, no thought is given to ensuring that cables will allow a link-up to installations in the immediate vicinity.
 There are proposals in Scottish waters to utilise redundant oil rigs and oilfields that are coming to the end of their use. We should have an overall plan so that if an installation were in such a situation, any cable bringing power would be of sufficient strength to allow link-up with installations nearby.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the clause, which covers competitive tendering. He must realise that he is straying from the debate on the clause, which is entitled ''Competitive tenders for offshore transmission licences''.

Michael Weir: My point is that, without a link-up between the various tenders made under competitive tendering, the situation that I outlined might arise. Will the regulations ensure that a competitive tender must take into account the possibility of subsequent tenders in that area to allow link-up to existing cabling?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. The round two wind farm developers are gathering the necessary information to apply for consents for construction. We are expecting generation to come on stream by 2007-08 and be completed over seven or eight years. I agree with him that the programme of activity must be carefully matched with the programme to provide the connections infrastructure. One benefit of identifying three specific areas around the coast is that the need for connections will be tightly concentrated. We are working closely with Ofgem to ensure that that programme is in place so that developers can connect up. I agree with him that that must be built in to the way that we move forward.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 - Consents for generating stations offshore

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in
clause 94, page 72, line 14, at end insert—
 '(1A) Where this paragraph applies, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 shall apply to the relevant conservation body.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 181, in
clause 94, page 72, line 22, leave out 'does not apply' and insert 
 'shall be amended to apply to the relevant conservation body'. 
No. 182, in 
clause 94, page 72, line 44, at end insert 'or conservation body'. 
No. 183, in 
clause 94, page 72, line 47, after 'authority', insert 'or conservation body'.

Bob Blizzard: On a point of order, I seek your guidance, Mr. O'Brien. Will you be allowing a stand part debate on clause 94 after we have debated the amendments and stand part debates on clauses 100 and 101?

Bill O'Brien: We will follow the procedure. If someone wants to raise a question on clause 94 in a stand part debate, that will be permitted.

Norman Baker: This is a significant and serious amendment, to which I hope the Minister will respond accordingly. It would require the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry into proposed offshore renewable energy installation development, if the relevant statutory nature conservation organisation requested such an inquiry. The reason for tabling the amendment is that under the Bill as drafted, if the development of an offshore renewable energy installation is proposed outside an area in which a local authority has jurisdiction, the ability of a objecting body to request a public inquiry into that proposal is weakened or lost. Whether a public inquiry is held becomes a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State.
 Normally with planning matters, we assume that there is a role for local authorities, which are democratically elected and reflect their local area. In some respects that is a safeguard in planning towns. There is no such safeguard in the Bill because it gives the Secretary of State much more discretion to decide whether public inquiries into proposed developments are held than would be the case on land. Therefore, it seems sensible, right and wise to build in a counterbalancing mechanism. 
 The Secretary of State will, to some extent, be judge and jury in these matters. He will, rightly, be promoting offshore energy electricity generation and he or she may not wish to listen carefully to objections, no matter how well founded they are. A counterbalance between the powers of one part of the constitution and those that are exercised elsewhere is needed. That balance, by and large, exists at local level in respect of planning matters, but not in the Bill because local authorities are excluded, as matters are outside their jurisdiction. 
 The amendments would require a public inquiry or hearing to be held into any proposed offshore renewable energy installation if the statutory nature conservation agencies requested such an inquiry. As presently constructed, those agencies are English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Environment and Heritage 
 Service in Northern Ireland, if the proposed installation is within territorial waters, or the Joint Nature Conservation Committee if it is beyond those territorial waters. If that provision were included, it would encourage developers to think carefully about nature conservation interests when deciding where to establish installations. It would also encourage Ministers to scrutinise applications carefully and to ensure that the marine environment was properly considered, something to which all members of the Committee are sympathetic. The amendments go no further than similar amendments to the Harbours Bill. 
 The Minister may argue that the amendments are unnecessary because if the relevant statutory nature conservation agencies had serious objections to a proposed application, it is inconceivable that the application would not be subject to a public inquiry or a hearing. But that rather depends on the good will of the Secretary of State at the time. If he argues that it is inconceivable that such representations will be ignored, nothing will be lost by including the provision in the Bill. It will save the Secretary of State from having to take an embarrassing decision on whether to heed the objections. 
 Equally, I am sure that if a public inquiry or hearing were triggered by the objection of a statutory body, such bodies would be more careful about what they objected to. They will not use that power lightly. If, however, they cannot trigger a public inquiry or a hearing automatically, but simply use it as a pressure point on the Secretary of State of the day, they may be inclined to call for a public inquiry more often, knowing that they cannot require it. They will use it as a weapon with which to beat the Secretary of State over the head and to state that he has not listened to their views. It would make sense to include the amendment, or a similar provision, in the Bill.

Bob Blizzard: I accept that the proposal would limit the ability to call for a public inquiry to certain bodies, but if such a public inquiry were held, would it then be open to all and sundry to present evidence? Would that not risk having public inquiries that went on and on, as has been the case with various energy developments in this country for many years?

Norman Baker: I would argue that the public inquiry system should be the same—as much as we can make it, given that local authorities are not involved—as for public inquiries triggered on land. There is a separate issue about how public inquiries are handled, and whether they go on too long; that is a matter for all public inquiries. Perhaps the Government think that the system should be streamlined as they are currently trying to do through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.

Brian White: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Public Administration Committee is currently considering that matter. There are proposals about how planning inquiries are different from public inquiries, and how they are dealt with.

Norman Baker: I am always grateful for an intervention from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who is usually helpful to the points that I make, although not invariably so. This is a safeguard that is good for the environment and an important balance in the constitutional arrangements. I think that it is good for the Government and for the Minister, who I hope will look favourably on the idea.

Anne McIntosh: I listened with some sympathy to the hon. Member for Lewes moving his amendments, and was mindful of the fact that probably the single most unpopular policy decision made by the present Government in the Vale of York was to give permission to construct a line of pylons from Stockton to the southern flanks of the vale, passing through some of the most hitherto unspoilt parts of the countryside. Are the Government minded to have a public inquiry about offshore installations, bearing in mind that their commitment to renewable energy is almost totally obsessive, with the concentration on wind farms? Most of those currently tend to be located in the south-east of England or parts of Scotland, but increasingly they are offshore.
 If the Minister were to agree to such a round of public inquiries, the Government would overcome some of the difficulties that they have encountered with the shipping industry, such as the round 1 consultations. The Transport Committee heard that none of the expert witnesses from the shipping industry had been consulted at that stage. There was a singular lack of consultation, which is highly regrettable. If the Government consented to a public inquiry into offshore oil installations, that would help. It need not necessarily be long and protracted but there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire mentioned earlier, much greater technical problems. The elements are certainly a much bigger factor offshore in connection with installations in renewable energy zones than I would argue is the case onshore. 
 I am not sure that the hon. Member for Lewes referred to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but I imagine that the Department would not necessarily think of consulting it on each application. I certainly hope that it will. There are avid twitchers among us, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who are members of the RSPB. 
 The Minister will be all too aware that offshore wind farms have as devastating consequences for the bird population as onshore wind farms. We have not seen that so much in this country at this stage, but the vulture population in Spain was decimated. Vultures are perhaps not the most popular birds and I agree with the Minister. I do not want to argue the case for vultures, least of all those in Spain, but there are elections on Thursday and we would like to persuade a number of people who live there to support our view. The vulture plays an important role in the food chain in Spain, maintaining the balance of wildlife, but the 
 population has been decimated as a result of putting a wind farm on a mountain, in a flight path. The consequences have been devastating. 
 If the Minister is not minded to support the amendment that the hon. Member for Lewes moved, I hope that he will put our minds at rest about the bird population. As the Minister will be aware, the RSPB has more than 1 million members. The four parties in the Committee would be hard pressed to claim that, between them, they represented as many members. I make that point humbly to the Minister. If he is not minded to have a public inquiry, how will such interests be represented when each applications is made? I repeat; offshore installations will cover much bigger areas than offshore oil rigs. The potential environmental consequences will be that much greater.

Bob Blizzard: It was said this morning—by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, I think—that everyone on the Committee was committed to renewable energy. I hope that we are. The technology for wind energy is ready to run, which is why the Government are rightly putting so much emphasis on wind energy in delivering the renewable energy target. However, it has been difficult to make sufficient progress onshore because of the various objections of people who live quite close to the sites.
 I thought that we were going to have a much clearer run in going offshore with wind energy. It is difficult to stand up in a democratic society and say that there should not be public inquiries, but we hold so many public inquiries that the country runs the risk of grinding to a halt under their weight. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Lewes, I am worried that provisions for public inquiries into offshore wind energy will cause us to get bogged down and prevent us from making progress. I should have thought that if the statutory conservation bodies had a valid point that they made openly and powerfully to the Government, the Government would find that evidence-based point difficult to ignore. I am worried that if we open up the possibility of such public inquiries, we will end up with Uncle Tom Cobley going along.

Robert Key: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, so can he explain why his Government dropped the provisions from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that would have allowed what he wants?

Bill O'Brien: Order. We should not be discussing what took place in consideration of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Can we please keep to the amendment?

Bob Blizzard: I gratefully take your advice, Mr. O'Brien.
 The Bill contains a lot of measures for protection—we have talked about marine protection, and environmental impact assessments are required. As the Minister said earlier, the people applying for such license have to gather all kinds of information. There are many opportunities in the process for the various 
 interests to make their points. Statutory conservation bodies are powerful and Governments cannot ignore them; if such a body has to call for public inquiry to make its point, it is probably not working very well.

Stephen Timms: A consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 is needed from the Secretary of State for generating stations onshore of more than 50 MW capacity and generating stations offshore of more than 1 MW in capacity. Schedule 8 to the 1989 Act means that if a local planning authority with jurisdiction over a site objects to a generating station, the Secretary of State is required to hold a public inquiry, as the hon. Member for Lewes said.
 The main purpose of clause 94(2) is to clarify the role of the local planning authority if the application for consent relates to a generating station offshore; in other words, not in the authority's jurisdiction. We propose that an authority should not have the right to force a public inquiry with regard to the parts of a generating station that are outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, it could not force an inquiry into a development that was wholly offshore. 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes would give the relevant conservation body the same powers to force a public inquiry in respect of offshore generating stations as a local planning authority has onshore. That would not be right, because the powers given to an authority in respect of onshore stations recognise its unique position. They reflect the fact that a proposed station, if the Secretary of State consented to it, would be built within the authority's jurisdiction. There is not a good analogy between the role of a local planning authority in relation to its area and the role of a relevant conservation body in respect of offshore stations. The views and expertise of relevant conservation bodies are certainly important, but such bodies are not in a comparable situation to a local planning authority with regard to onshore stations. 
 Of course, many other organisations would have an interest in an offshore generating station. The hon. Member for Vale of York has repeatedly reminded us of the interests of the shipping and ports industries. It would not be right for conservation bodies to have a power to the exclusion of other bodies with a perfectly legitimate interest. What we should have, which the provisions secure, is the ability for any individual or organisation with a concern to object to the Secretary of State about any development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said. The Secretary of State then decides whether to hold a public inquiry. It would not be right to give a special power to any specific interest groups, given the broad range of issues that need to be considered in reaching a decision. 
 That said, the Government and developers will, from the earliest possible point in the development of proposals, work closely with the conservation bodies to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. We 
 need their input to the environmental assessment work; that is essential. We will not be able to do that job properly without them. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York rightly referred to the RSPB, which has taken a great deal of interest in this subject. A great deal has been made of what happened with the wind farm in Spain. Anyone who looked at it would say that it was badly sited. If we look at wind farms more generally, we see that the incidence of bird hits is very low. In that particular case, it was very high. It certainly highlights the need for us to consider carefully the siting of installations in relation to bird populations, including those offshore, and we will do so through the consents process. I would expect the RSPB to raise concerns with us, as it has done so far, if it felt that a bird population would be put at risk by a development. 
 It is important to underline the fact that significant numbers of bird species are at risk from the threat of climate change, so from the point of view of what the hon. Lady referred to as twitchers, there is every reason to want to see much more renewable energy in future, precisely because that will safeguard bird populations.

Anne McIntosh: I consider myself a twitcher. In fact, this August I shall visit the sea bird centre that was established in North Berwick two or three years ago. I do not know if that was done by the RSPB. I thank the Minister for his comments. I am delighted that he has reflected that the RSPB and other interested parties will be consulted at the time of the consent application.
 The hon. Member for Lewes has done the Committee a great service in tabling the amendments. He has identified a question; at what stage of the consent application will such consultations take place? Will the Minister confirm that bad siting—such as was evident at the wind farm in Valencia, I think—would not happen offshore or onshore in this country?

Stephen Timms: That is the objective of the various assessments, described earlier, that will be undertaken. We will certainly want to engage interested parties at as early a stage as possible, as we have on a number of offshore projects already, to make sure that we do not get the decisions wrong. That is as much in the developers' interests as anybody else's.

Norman Baker: I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Waveney and by the Minister. I intend no disrespect to the hon. Member for Vale of York; I agree with a lot of what she said, so I do not have to respond to it.
 The hon. Member for Waveney said that there were too many public inquiries, that we were all in favour of renewable energy and wanted to see it developed. He said that public inquiries were an impediment that might get in the way of development, so we should not have them for offshore installations. 
 It is dangerous to espouse the view that democracy should be circumvented to achieve an end that we want. As it happens, I want the same end as he does; a massive expansion of renewable energy offshore and 
 onshore, whether that involves wind power or other sources such as photovoltaics or tidal power. There are a whole lot of potential sources. 
 However, the idea that, because there might be legitimate objections, we should not go through a public inquiry process seems dangerous. The rigour of the case for climate change—to which the Minister referred—and other arguments will, in most cases, more than outweigh objections at any public inquiry. 
 However, we have to be very careful before we sideline not only democracy but the Government's own statutory conservation bodies. The hon. Member for Waveney said that the Government could not ignore the statutory conservation bodies. My amendment would ensure that the Government could not ignore them, because such bodies could require a public inquiry. On the other hand, not having my amendment would mean that the Government could ignore them; that is what the Bill sets out at the moment. 
 The Minister rightly referred to the position on land—where local authorities have jurisdiction—and to the position offshore. He said that he did not like the comparison that I made between the power that a local authority ought to have onshore and the power that I would suggest a statutory conservation body ought to have offshore. He did not like that because—I do not think that he said this, but if he had I would have had some sympathy—a local authority is elected and therefore democratically accountable, whereas a statutory conservation body is not. He could have made that point and I would have gone along with it to some degree. 
 Equally, I hope that he would agree that there is validity in the argument that it is wrong to have a trigger for land-based installations through local authorities—that is a counterbalance to the Secretary of State of the day; we have checks and balances, as we must in a democracy—but to have no such counterbalance offshore. 
 The Minister did not like the idea that we should pick up what he called ''interest groups.'' That was the phrase; I wrote it down. I do not think it appropriate to call statutory conservation bodies interest groups. They are set up by Parliament through legislation to perform particular functions for the public; they are accountable to Ministers and to Parliament. They are rather different from, say, shipping companies, which certainly have an interest in what happens on the high seas, but which are not statutory bodies. 
 Although the Minister may not like the comparison between local authorities and statutory conservation bodies—one is elected and one is not—I do not like the unbalanced nature of the arrangement whereby a public inquiry can be triggered on land, but not offshore. Apart from the circumvention of democracy or accountability, my objection is that the Minister is keen to promote renewable energy. He and the Government recognise the need to get a big increase in renewable generation capacity over quite a short period. He is trying to find a way of doing that through the Bill and the energy White Paper. 
 The objectives that he has set out are shared by my party. Although we may disagree on occasion with the tactics adopted, we want to get to the same end point. If the concerns of the hon. Member for Waveney turn out to be justified and the public inquiries on land applications are snowed under with objections to wind farms or any other renewable energy proposals, the Government will be tempted to say that there is an easier option. They will go offshore where there is no public inquiry process, even though the effects on the environment may be significant or even worse than they might be onshore. 
 That is already happening. The Government are pushing offshore renewable energy. It runs through the Bill to the exclusion of many other renewable energy sources. They are doing so because there is some opposition on land to wind farms, for example, and there may be opposition to other renewable energy technologies. The Government see going offshore as an easy way of getting something started. I do not disagree with that in a sense. It is a sensible tactic to get wind farms up and running. It may well be that once they are up and running, some of the fears that are articulated will prove to be unfounded and some of the opposition will go away. 
 The Bill compounds the problem. Not only have we identified the offshore option as the easier option, but the Bill ensures that there is less opportunity to object to it. It is left to the Secretary of State. Yes, English Nature and the RSBP can object to the Secretary of State but at the end of the day it is down to him to decide. He cannot be forced to do anything that he does not want to do. 
 If the Government are not meeting their renewable targets, partly because they have been slow on the uptake and partly because opposition has slowed things down on land, they will go for a big explosion offshore. That may not be the right policy. It may not be the right policy environmentally and the Government may take a gamble with the environment offshore because it is the quickest way of getting the renewable capacity up. If they do so there should at least be a holding block, rather than a veto. Something is needed that requires a test to be applied, such as a public inquiry and that is best left with the statutory conservation bodies.

Bob Blizzard: Does the hon. Gentleman think that every application for an offshore oil and gas installation should have been subject to a public inquiry?

Norman Baker: The same planning procedures and safeguards should apply to offshore developments, whatever they are, as to onshore developments. If there is a requirement for a particular process to kick in for an installation onshore, that process should equally apply offshore. I have made my point. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. I hope that he does not mind me saying that. No disrespect is intended. I will seek to return to this, probably on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in
clause 94, page 73, line 12, at end insert—
 '(11) Consents shall not be granted until such time as the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no threat posed to the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.
 (12) Any proposal for an Offshore Wind Installation shall include details about the procedures to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and the wind farm.
 (13) In the event of a change to an existing site being proposed, bodies representing the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters shall be consulted.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 186, in 
clause 100, page 77, line 36, leave out 'may' and insert 'is likely to'. 
Clause 100 stand part. 
 Amendment No. 164, in 
clause 101, page 77, line 41, at end add 
 'in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'. 
Clause 101 stand part. 
 New clause 17—Collision within a renewable energy installation— 
 'The Secretary of State for Transport shall set out procedures to be followed to prevent a collision taking place within a renewable energy installation, and procedures to be followed in the event of a collision within a renewable energy installation.'.

Anne McIntosh: I pay tribute to my noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Hendon, who led the debate in the other place, particularly on clauses 100 and 101—

Bob Blizzard: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. Earlier, you asked Back Benchers to speak up so that the Hansard reporter could hear them. Could I ask you to ask those on the Front Benches to speak up so that Back Benchers can hear them?

Bill O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Lady heard that.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. O'Brien. I will slow down, as I do not want to rush when discussing what I consider to be the meat of this part of the Bill.
 I pay tribute to my noble Friend, who successfully moved clauses 100 and 101. I understand that the Minister intends to delete those clauses. We heard that a representative of his Department said in evidence to the Transport Committee that the Government were minded to delete the clauses, and offered—as the Minister did earlier—to suggest a new form of words. It is unacceptable that we should have this debate before the Minister and his Department have produced that new form of words. I hope that the Committee will be convinced that clauses 100 and 101 are integral to the Bill and should be kept. 
 Let me draw the Committee's attention to today's Order Paper—perhaps when the Committee rises, we all can rush down to the Chamber and participate in the proceedings. Part of the evidence—both oral and written—that the Transport Committee took on this 
 part of the Bill concerned shipping, maritime and navigation industry interests. They were heavily represented. I shall in a moment discuss the fact that the new installations mentioned in this part of the Bill will interfere with the visibility of those navigating our waters, territorial and beyond. 
 It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that the second item of business in the House this afternoon concerns the global navigation satellite system. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) is to present EU documents relating to the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radionavigation programme. The Minister might wish to refer to that. Although that is the proper concern of the Department for Transport, it is directly relevant to this part of the Bill, and refers specifically to progress on the Galileo research programme. 
 The Transport Committee heard evidence concerning the Government's commitment to undertake research. Will the Minister confirm that part of that research concerns global satellite navigation systems, represented by Galileo, and explain to the Committee what stage that programme has reached? That would be pertinent to the debate. 
 Clause 94 refers to consents for generating stations offshore. As we have heard, this is a new exercise; there is only one to date. We can learn from that experience and take stock of where we are. If any mistakes appear—mistakes by omission as well as commission—it will be very timely for a review to be made and for correctional action to be taken. 
 My hon. Friends and I believe that it is not appropriate for consents to be granted 
''until such a time as an applicant can demonstrate that there will be no threat posed to the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters.'' 
The threat posed should be interpreted in the widest possible way.

Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Lady tell the Committee what she would envisage the wind or renewable energy developers would have to do to demonstrate that there will be no threat, as in the words of her amendment?

Anne McIntosh: I will come to that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his timely intervention. Amendment No. 170 is meant to be constructive and a positive contribution to the debate. I would like to highlight some of the omissions that were identified and where we think that positive action can be taken.
 According to the amendment: 
 ''Any proposal for an Offshore Wind Installation shall include details of the procedure to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and the wind farm.'' 
The Transport Committee was given compelling evidence about a potential accident waiting to happen. When the Minister sums up the debate, can we hear how his Department imagines that pre-emptive action will be taken to avoid such a collision? We will also come on to consider new clause 17, which we submitted in a totally positive and constructive way. The amendment adds:
 ''In the event of a change to an existing site being proposed, bodies representing the navigational, maritime and shipping interests also using these waters'' 
should also be consulted. In clause 94 and in earlier clauses, reference is made to the ''relevant planning authority''. It is probably complete ignorance on my part, but can the Minister clarify what he understands the relevant planning authority to be? As the hon. Member for Lewes said, the Committee needs to be reassured that there will not just be a flood of applications for offshore installations because the process is perhaps deemed to be easier or more woolly, and because it is considered easier to obtain consent. 
 The regulatory impact assessment offers some assistance. Pages 35 and 36 refer to the main costs to the developers, which will be those incurred in putting together applications for consents for new developments under clause 94. There was no reference in the evidence given to the Transport Committee to the cost to shipping, maritime and other navigational interests of having to navigate around what will be potential hazards to traditional shipping routes. It is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, but I am sure that he is working closely with the relevant Ministers in the Department for Transport. There is a public right to navigation. The purpose of the amendments to this clause, starting with amendment No. 170, is to explore the parameters of where the public right to navigation can be compromised for renewable energy. 
 The hon. Member for Waveney said that we are all committed to renewable energy. I would like to think that we have a more joined-up policy. Not only are we committed to renewable energy but we do not share the compulsive obsession evidenced by his Government, who seem to be preoccupied not just by wind farms but, as the hon. Member for Lewes mentioned, offshore wind farms in particular.

Bob Blizzard: Would the hon. Lady like to say what other source of renewable energy is available to the level of technological development needed for it to be rolled out in such a manner to stand any chance of meeting the Government's targets?

Anne McIntosh: I do not know whether I would be in order to itemise those sources, but they are already in the Bill. They are enumerated in an earlier clause, which we explored at some length. I would be happy to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge if time permits, but I would prefer to continue in my flow. I do not want to test the Committee's patience too much.

Alan Whitehead: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's argument on amendment No. 170 and new clause 17, and I am particularly interested in proposed new paragraph (11) in the amendment. Is it her contention that, if that paragraph were adhered to properly, it would be possible for any consent to be given for offshore installations? The requirement for no threat whatsoever to be posed would be impossible.

Anne McIntosh: I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. The director general of the Chamber of Shipping stated positively to the Transport Committee
 in his evidence on Wednesday 28 April that the shipping industry was supportive of the principle of offshore wind farms. It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that we are primarily a maritime nation, and about 90 per cent. of our trade is carried by sea. Most passes through the routes that we will consider later, so I will not pre-empt that part of the debate.
 Page 35 of the regulatory impact assessment states: 
 ''At the moment the fee for an application for a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction, extension and operation of a generating station starts at £5,000 . . . The cost of an application for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 starts at £12,000 . . . For generating stations over 50 megawatts the fee is £20,000.'' 
Considerable sums of money are involved, and at the next paragraph, 4.31, larger sums are mentioned. They are well set out in the document, so I do not propose to rehearse them here. 
 What is disappointing in the Bill, the explanatory notes and the regulatory impact assessment is the lack of regard to other interests. The amendments would achieve a balance of interests in respect of the Government—this one, or a future Conservative Government—meeting their renewable energy targets. It would also mean that we were not turning our back on one of our traditional maritime activities. 
 A powerful strand in the evidence was the lack of consultation on round 1, and even more so on round 2 of the consents. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister confirmed that under round 2 the Government will honour their commitment to consult on the possibilities in respect of licences at the earliest possible stage. Mr. Hall, the senior manager of the Chamber of Shipping, said: 
 ''With Round One, everyone was on the learning curve. We were consulted on the consent procedures and then, after the consent procedures, individual developers came forward to us with their individual proposals for scoping studies for comment and it was at that stage that we started to get involved officially.'' 
My point is that it would have been much better for everyone concerned if that consultation had been held earlier. 
 On the same day, Rear-Admiral Jeremy de Halpert, Deputy Master, Trinity House, spoke in evidence of the complete disregard for what is necessary to navigate or pilot an 8,000-container ship of very deep draught through the port of London. Visual markings and navigational aids are fundamental to guiding such a ship into harbour, but the Government are considering inviting an application for consents in respect of precisely that navigational lane. 
 There is a place for offshore and onshore wind farms, but it is important to strike a balance after the widest possible consultation. The Port of London Authority gave evidence to the Select Committee, and the chief executive wrote to members of the Committee about clauses 100 and 101, which the amendments are intended to strengthen: 
 ''The legal position without the clauses is complex and not as DTI officials claim. There would be a danger that the public right to navigation could be extinguished by dictat of the Energy Minister without proper consultation with the marine industries. Clauses 100 and 101 prevent that.'' 
 I referred earlier to the need for the Government to make a proper contribution to research. I ask the Minister under what budget the research has been funded. According to the Port of London Authority, the Government should carry through 
''the recommended research programme on interference to shore-to-ship and ship-to-ship radars, radio communications, and other electronic navigation aids'' 
before the Bill takes effect. Its understanding is that 
''£2.5 million has been set aside for this purpose by the Crown Estate, the DTI and DfT. The ports and shipping industries have been offered one place each on the steering group to oversee this research.'' 
What is the time scale for the research and what figure has the Minister's Department committed to it? It appears that the Department is rushing the Bill through. It is seeking to strike out clauses 100 and 101 without coming forward with the form of words that it has promised us. 
 The Port of London Authority argues that the ports and shipping industries should be 
''properly consulted . . . at the initial strategic planning stage before any further areas are selected for provisional licensing.'' 
Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that such consultation will take place? Will he confirm that his Department has rejected the industry's suggestion for a memorandum of understanding between the marine industries and the Department of Trade and Industry, or does he accept that the memorandum may be a way forward? 
 I shall refer to one specific site, which the Minister may wish to comment on. Part of the site would block the Fisherman's Gat, which is one of the four main access channels to and from the port of London and is used by 2,568 commercial vessels a year. The northern boundary of the proposed site is the edge of the Black Deep channel, used by 4,114 commercial vessels a year. Of those vessels, 1,110 are deep-draughted ships, which can use only that channel and could not easily manoeuvre to avoid the size of installation referred to in clause 94 and amendment No. 170. Those ships account for approximately 10 million tonnes of cargo a year—20 per cent. of London's annual throughput—including crude oil supplies to a major oil refinery. 
 Does the Minister accept that agreeing such an exclusion zone around the London Array planned site would effectively close the Black Deep channel for navigation purposes, devastating the economy of London and the south-east? Is that his intention? Any exclusion zone must be inside the boundary of the wind farm zone as provisionally allocated. 
 As we heard from the hon. Member for Angus, we are also trying to balance the interests of recreational boat users. The British marine industry's views are mainly put forward by the Royal Yachting Association, which has raised two fundamental concerns about clause 170. One involves safety, to which we have referred. There is an obvious risk of collision with any large installation in the coastal zone or an estuary. The industry wants to know what the Government are doing about marking and lighting. Another concern relates to risk management and 
 emergency response in the event of an incident. It cannot be right that the Bill omits any reference to a possible collision. 
 The industry also seeks assurances that the operation of wind farms will not have an effect on small craft navigation and communications instrumentation, and it is concerned that the increase in coastal wind farms will lead to no-go areas in locations that have been traditionally significant to recreational boating. One of the locations in the south-west of England springs to mind. Indeed, we drew attention to it on the Floor of the House during Question Time. 
 There will also be another safety issue if recreational sailors are squeezed towards commercial shipping routes. The Royal Yachting Association has produced a series of maps that show strategically important cruising and racing areas and identify areas more suitable for wind farms that would be less exposed to this traditional type of use. 
 Later, we will consider the decommissioning of wind farms if the Government are minded to agree to that, but derelict wind farms would continue to be a hazard to navigation at the end of their useful cycle. I want to know the Government's plans for decommissioning and the management of desolate installations. 
 With regard to clauses 100 and 101, it is important to take account of the views of the shipping industry as expressed by the Chamber of Shipping, among others. Compelling credence is given to its concerns in the Select Committee's findings, which we will discuss in a moment. The Chamber of Shipping was led to believe, as we were, that the Government would propose amendments to these clauses. I thought that they might do so in Committee, but it now appears that they may do so on Report. 
 It would be very helpful if the Minister gave us some indication of the content of the Government's revised drafts. I urge the Committee to seek to retain the original clauses because the industry accepts them and we know that they are workable. Will he be good enough to share with us the time scale for introducing the revised drafts? 
 I want to place on record the strong views of the shipping industry, port groups and the lighthouse authorities, expressed in a letter from the Chamber of Shipping that I shall pass to Hansard after the sitting, in support of clauses 100 and 101. They repeat their support for wind farm development, but 
''only where it doesn't put seafarers' lives at risk. These clauses should not limit the ability of developers to meet their proposed targets, but would ensure installations do not become a threat to safety. 
 Clauses 100 and 101 are necessary as they act as a safeguard to protect ships, their crews and the environment from threats to the safety of navigation. Placing wind farms in sea lanes (e.g. channels customarily used for navigation)'', 
as I indicated earlier, 
''creates a wide range of potentially serious risks. These include the increased possibility of ship collision,'' 
to which I have already referred, 
''damage to the environment and interference with marine equipment including radar, VHF, ship to ship and ship to shore communications and digital navigation systems.''
The industry would welcome the Committee's support for these clauses as essential to protect the 125,000 or more ships a year and their crews that under current proposals will pass in close proximity to wind farms. 
 Perhaps the Minister is not remotely concerned about the future of British shipping, and the contribution that the industry makes through not only the British Chamber of Shipping but the Major Ports Group, the Port of London authority and many others who have given evidence on this matter. I should like to rehearse to the Committee the reasons why the Transport Committee concluded as strongly as it did—potentially destroying the Government's intention—that the wind farms proposed under clause 94 and the rest of the Bill could be a hazard to navigation and shipping. Its first conclusion was: 
 ''It is the Government's task to balance the need of the country for clean renewable energy with its need for ready and safe access to its ports by the shipping through which we trade. In doing this, it must take account of the very real risks that off shore installations pose for shipping. With little or no maritime representation on the steering group, it is hardly surprising that the . . . strategic environmental assessment . . . made very little reference to navigational matters.'' 
Clearly, that is a huge oversight, which I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to address. The Committee went to say: 
 ''We do not understand why the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency did not insist on being represented on the steering group on the environmental assessment of the strategic areas. Still more seriously, we do not understand why the Department for Trade and Industry did not see that their inclusion was essential. It is clear from a glance at the map appended to this report''— 
which will be very familiar to the Minister— 
''that every one of the strategic areas is on the approach to a major port or orts. The DTI should have been immediately aware of the need to ensure that the Strategic Environmental Assessments adequately identified navigation and marine safety issues.'' 
The Committee concluded: 
 ''It is obvious that just as the DfT and the MCA were not properly involved in the Strategic Environmental Assessments, their advice was not heeded at the tender stage. Many of the sites chosen for further evaluation may have serious impact on marine operations. It is imperative that the concerns of the ports, the shipping industry and all those who use the sea are properly addressed in their further evaluation.'' 
I draw attention again to the request for confirmation from the Minister on the question of research, which was another of the Transport Committee's conclusions. 
 Perhaps the most graphic and horrific conclusion reached by the Transport Committee was that it believes that 
''some sort of collision, at some time, is inevitable, and that plans must be in place to deal with it.'' 
This is the Minister's opportunity to tell us now precisely what those plans are in place, and when he intends to announce them. The report goes on: 
 ''Given the difficulties of manoeuvring large vessels subject to wind and tide, the possibility that vessels may lose steerage'',
when they are approaching land—and by definition, to reduce costs, the wind farms are as close to land as possible, and where the wind is greatest—means that these are very real issues indeed. As for consent procedures, the subject of amendment No. 170, they 
''should require that the location of safety zones around installations is addressed.'' 
The Minister will know that oil rigs in the North sea and around our coasts have safety zones. We would like confirmation in response to the amendment that the Minister will put in place similar safety zones with regard to consent applications around wind farms in the renewable zones. 
 The hon. Member for Waveney challenged me to say under what circumstances consent would be given. I am confident that the Minister, who is very much in command of his brief, will be able to convince the shipping industry that a balance can be reached. However, he has perhaps not got off to the best start, by failing to sound out the industry's views at the earliest stage. 
 The views of the Trinity House Lighthouse Board and the other general lighthouse authorities were made clear to the Transport Committee. The Committee said: 
 ''We welcome the Government's apparent willingness to consider new ways of identifying suitable sites for development, and managing the development process.'' 
However, it appears that a dialogue in connection with the consents applications under rounds one and two was not opened with either Trinity House or the other lighthouse authorities. Can the Minister confirm that regard will be paid to the interests of Trinity House and other general lighthouse authorities in round two and future stages? 
 I am sure that the Minister will be embarrassed that one of the Transport Committee's conclusions was: 
 ''However the next round of development is carried out, it is imperative that it is better handled than the current one, and that the organisations responsible for marine safety, the ports, and representatives of the marine industries and those who work in them, are properly consulted at an early stage.'' 
To his credit, the Minister has not prayed in aid commercial confidentiality. The Transport Committee concluded: 
 ''Commercial confidentiality should not compromise marine safety, or the country's economic interests.'' 
The Transport Committee's final conclusion said: 
 ''The Government has woefully mishandled the development of offshore wind energy. Clauses 100 and 101 must remain in the Bill. This is necessary to restore the confidence of the marine industries which, like renewable energy, are vital for our country's future. We were told that any amendments the Government proposed to these clauses would be intended to make them 'practically workable'.'' 
I am sure that we would all be interested to know what form of words the Minister will bring forward to make the provisions practically effective. 
 In considering the terms of clauses 100 and 101, the Minister is keen on the phrase ''red line''—or, as I would say, ''red line in the sand''. Clauses 100 and 101 are our red lines in the sand and we will go to sea or to the wall to protect them. The wording of those clauses is so clear that there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Clause 100 says:
 ''Installations and the safety zones around them may not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation.'' 
That is as clear as it could possibly be. Clause 101 says: 
 ''In assessing whether installations and the safety zones around them present a danger to navigation, the Secretary of State''— 
of Trade and Industry, presumably— 
''shall ensure that their cumulative effects on safety of navigation are taken fully into account.'' 
The Government have not come forward with an alternative wording, so perhaps the Minister has had a change of heart. 
 In speaking to amendment No. 164, I draw the Minister's attention to the shipping industry's criticisms, which I have rehearsed in this debate, and to the Transport Committee's damning criticism. I request that he accept amendment No. 164, which would add to clause 101 the words 
''in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency'', 
or that he tell us how that will take place. 
 I move to new clause 17. We are mindful of the fact that collisions are accidents waiting to happen. Will the Minister tell us how the Secretary of State for Transport intends to proceed in the event of a collision taking place in a renewable energy installation, and about the procedures to be followed in such an event? 
 I want to remind the Minister of some of the correspondence that he and I have been enjoying, and some parliamentary questions and answers. I understand that the cost of connecting wind farms to the national grid is prohibitive. I received a letter of reply about onshore wind farms from the Minister on 29 April, which stated that the estimated cost of grid reinforcement for transmission and distribution for the major expansion of renewable energy envisaged in the years ahead is £2.1 billion.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I am following the hon. Lady's contribution carefully, but I cannot see any reference in the amendment to the cost of connecting wind farms to the grid. If there is any such reference, perhaps the hon. Lady will point to it.

Anne McIntosh: Indeed. When I was speaking to amendment No. 170, I mentioned that there would be no threat to the other interests. However, it may be more appropriate to raise those points in the stand part debate on clause 94.

Bill O'Brien: We are currently discussing whether clauses 100 and 101 should stand part; we have not yet got to the stand part debate on clause 94.

Anne McIntosh: It might be more appropriate to save those remarks for that debate. I am happy to do so.
 In speaking to the amendments and in seeking to retain clauses 100 and 101, the Minister has not covered himself and his Department in glory. They have an opportunity to save themselves and to help the shipping industry. 
 I pay tribute to the work of the shipping industry. The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers gave compelling evidence to the Transport Committee. Its official who gave evidence was convinced that the alternative to clauses 100 and 101 would be practical if those clauses were overturned. 
 It is stretching the faith and good will of the Committee too far to ask us to reject perfectly acceptable measures that meet all the shipping, navigational and maritime criteria and interests without seeing any alternatives. The Minister said that the Government will respond to the Transport Committee's conclusions in due course, but I put it to the Committee that, as we are living in the present, it is not appropriate for the Minister to ask us to wait for the Government to produce a formal response when we are discussing clauses 100 and 101 this afternoon. 
Debate adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock till Tuesday 15 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.